ben egbert wrote:
Is it ok to clone in the same dramatic sky on every image that needs one? Heck you will get caught.

That probably doesn't fall into the category of "judicious" & "skillful", nor "plausible" ... nor do I consider a "dramatic sky" to be an insignificant/mundane addition. Moving your sky a few pixels, so your composition lines up a bit better, eh no biggie ... the mundane clouds (no trophy) moved on their own anyway.

ben egbert wrote:
the thrill of witnessing it in person cannot be faked.

+1
Sometimes photography is like eating "chips & salsa" ... the chips are only the medium that connects us to the salsa.

And is very difficult to translate to a viewer with "normal" processing ... i.e. our viewer's often times need more help than we might otherwise deem necessary. "If you had only been there, you would've seen ... "

Trophy's, salsa & message ... it can get a little convoluted as to what/why we do what we do and what our intents are. They can be kinda tough to separate (Jim's subtle distinction) at times, but we love our craft for them just the same, even when our brains can't always recognize or explain the difference. And when we've done a "really good job" ... never needs to.

ben egbert wrote:
The fundamental unanswered question in this thread is if there is a place for any less than perfect skill/artistic level.

ABSOLUTELY, MOST EMPHATICALLY ... YES !!!

Can a person just show their stuff even though it is not at the level of art?
ABSOLUTELY, MOST EMPHATICALLY ... YES !!!

I may never get invited up to the porch with the "Big Dogs" ... but I still like to run.
That, and going back to the apprentice/master relationship of the masters of yore ... continued development requires continued effort with diligence.

RustyBug wrote:
That probably doesn't fall into the category of "judicious" & "skillful", nor "plausible" ... nor do I consider a "dramatic sky" to be an insignificant/mundane addition. Moving your sky a few pixels, so your composition lines up a bit better, eh no biggie ... the mundane clouds (no trophy) moved on their own anyway.

I want to start a new post on this with an example you will quickly recognize, but which I think is plausible.

ben egbert wrote:
The fundamental unanswered question in this thread is if there is a place for any less than perfect skill/artistic level.

We have established that there is different levels and I for one know I am well below that. Is there a threshold below which we should not post at all?

Can a person just show their stuff even though it is not at the level of art?
If you are asking about this forum, there are very liberal rules for posting which basically allow pretty much anything of your own work that is not lewd or profane. The landscape forum restricts members to one new thread per day with a maximum of 4 images. I don't see any mention of standards of quality.

My PP skills hopefully have improved since then, maybe I should revisit it. My favorite part of the sooc ... is his lime green shoes, his high dollar easel attachment (bag) and the roll of paper towels. I watched him work for about 20 minutes and we chatted for about 10 or so.

What makes you say that?

The painter was standing there for many hours (or multiple days) throughout the day working on his rendering. I'd at least give credence to the notion that he was showing you what you missed because you weren't there when it occurred. So, is he being "fake" for putting there what you don't see now, or being "real" at showing you what you missed? And, even if those were the clouds in the sky from yesterday ... it still fairly represents the scene, to communicate its message, imo.

I have no way of knowing what he saw earlier throughout the day, so for me ... it is totally plausible AND integral ... at least his painting anyway. ...Show more →

Ahh, time dependency is another element in addition to place. Is reality what you see in a microsecond or a blend of minutes, hours days, years?

If I open my shutter for 30 seconds on a dark night and capture light the eye never sees, is that an alteration of reality?

"The fundamental unanswered question in this thread is if there is a place for any less than perfect skill/artistic level."

The answer depends upon the answer to the implicit question, "What place?" There is "a place" but it is likely not a famous place or a place with ego strokes from others. As I've said before, most of my images I make to please myself. I throw most of my captures away because they don't please me. I don't expect to wow others, although it's nice when someone sees at least something in them that I do. Still, although I make some images I like, very few are completely satisfying. I want better, more meaningful images. It is why I spend my time at it. So for myself, the answer to the question you posed, is yes. That place is on my screen or on my wall or in my head as a base to continue to work to progress.

Good answer. Show's me a level of self confidence that I lack. I suspect I like too many of mine. I am still impressed with image quality over other considerations.

I consider forums a social medium and as unsocial as I am in person, I sort of need the online version which is pretty much the only one I have (or want).

As to where to post, it probably ends up finding a forum where your skill level (art and technical) are someplace in the upper 50%. So far I have not found this.

In the last week I have been to the UPS store 5 times. I am down to one camera and 4 lenses. It would be easy to sell the rest. I have certainly considered it. But my real reason was to focus what I am doing and have the gear that lets me take images more intuitively.

Perhaps it's the difference between internal and external motivation. I photograph when and because I feel the need or desire to make images. It's about making the images. I seldom do anything with the images after I make them. There can be long intervals when chores and obligations get in the way. That's ok. Since the need is internal, the approval of others isn't essential. Sure it's nice, but it's not why I make images. When I post an image for critique, I'm sometimes surprised when folks like 'em. Many, if not most of the images I like, I like for very personal reasons. That's ok. It's perfectly valid reason to make images. If I expected to sell them or garner awards, then they would have to be very different. Making images to please others doesn't motivate me. When I earned my living making portraits, it was very unsatisfying. As Ricky Nelson sang in "Garden Party":